In vitro biomechanical comparison of load to failure testing of a canine unconstrained medial compartment elbow arthroplasty system and normal canine thoracic limbs

Z. F. Smith; K. L. Wendelburg; S. Tepic; S. M. Stover; T. Garcia-Nolen; P. B. Stearns; K. Hayashi

doi:10.3415/VCOT-12-09-0115

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26(05): 356-365
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-12-09-0115

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

In vitro biomechanical comparison of load to failure testing of a canine unconstrained medial compartment elbow arthroplasty system and normal canine thoracic limbs

Authors

Z. F. Smith

¹Animal Specialty Group, Los Angeles, California, USA

²Sage Centers for Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Care, Concord, California, USA
K. L. Wendelburg

¹Animal Specialty Group, Los Angeles, California, USA
S. Tepic

³Kyon Veterinary Surgical Products, Zurich, Switzerland
S. M. Stover

⁴Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California at Davis, Davis, California, USA
T. Garcia-Nolen

⁵Department of Anatomy, Physiology, & Cell Biology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California at Davis, Davis, California, USA
P. B. Stearns

³Kyon Veterinary Surgical Products, Zurich, Switzerland
K. Hayashi

⁴Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California at Davis, Davis, California, USA

Abstract

Summary

Elbow dysplasia, primarily affecting the medial compartment, is the most common cause of lameness in the thoracic limb. Elbow arthroplasty is an option for end stage or severely affected patients. The purpose of this study was to compare ex vivo axial load to failure of an implanted novel elbow arthroplasty system to control limbs. The partial arthroplasty is a medial compartmental, unconstrained system, intended to allow conversion to total arthroplasty. We hypothesized that there would not be any significant difference between implanted and controlled limbs when loaded to failure. Six pairs of medium mixed breed canine cadaveric thoracic limbs were prepared for comparison of failure loading of control and implanted limbs. Axial compression was performed using a mechanical testing system. Failure loads were normalized to bodyweight. The mean normalized failure load (N/kg) for the implanted limbs and control limbs were 2.47 (range: 1.62-3.38) and 2.68 (range: 2.25-3.25), respectively. An implanted to control ratio of 0.93 ± 0.19 was calculated. The difference between paired control and implanted limbs in normalized failure loading was not significant (p = 0.38). There were not any differences noted in the yield load (p = 0.30), stiffness (p = 0.62), or energy (0.58). Failure modes were recorded. We concluded that the differences between implanted and control limbs in supra-physiologic axial load to failure were not significant.

Keywords

Canine elbow dysplasia - arthroplasty - biomechanics - unicompartmental elbow replacement

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Kirberger RM, Fourie SL. Elbow dysplasia in the dog: pathophysiology, diagnosis and control. J S Afr Vet Assoc 1998; 69: 43-54.
2 Van Ryssen B, van Bree H. Arthroscopic findings in 100 dogs with elbow lameness. Vet Rec 1997; 140: 360-362.
3 Slatter DH. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2003. p. 2003-1946.
4 Brinker WO, Piermattei DL, Flo GL. Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics & Fracture Treatment. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006. p. 2006-347.
5 Mason DR, Schulz KS, Fujita Y. et al. Measurement of humeroradial and humeroulnar transarticular joint forces in the canine elbow joint after humeral wedge and humeral slide osteotomies. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 63-70.
6 Fujita Y, Schulz KS, Mason DR. et al. Effect of humeral osteotomy on joint surface contact in canine elbow joints. Am J Vet Res 2003; 64: 506-511.
7 Conzemius M. Nonconstrained elbow replacement in dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 279-284.
8 Conzemius MG, Aper RL, Corti LB. Short-term outcome after total elbow arthroplasty in dogs with severe, naturally occurring osteoarthritis. Vet Surg 2003; 32: 545-552.
9 Conzemius MG, Aper RL, Hill CM. Evaluation of a canine total-elbow arthroplasty system: a preliminary study in normal dogs. Vet Surg 2001; 30: 11-20.
10 Dee R. Total replacement arthroplasty of the elbow for rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1972; 54: 88-95.
11 Goel VK, Lee IK, Blair WF. Stress distribution in the ulna following a hinged elbow arthroplasty. A finite element analysis. J Arthroplasty 1989; 4: 163-171.
12 Morrey BF, Bryan RS, Dobyns JH. et al. Total elbow arthroplasty. A five-year experience at the Mayo Clinic. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981; 63: 1050-1063.
13 Brumfield Jr. RH, Kuschner SH, Gellman H. et al. Total elbow arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1990; 5: 359-363.
14 Kraay MJ, Figgie MP, Inglis AE. et al. Primary semi-constrained total elbow arthroplasty. Survival analysis of 113 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994; 76: 636-640.
15 Souter WA. Surgery of the rheumatoid elbow. Ann Rheum Dis 1990; 49 Suppl 2 871-882.
16 Kudo H, Iwano K. Total elbow arthroplasty with a non-constrained surface-replacement prosthesis in patients who have rheumatoid arthritis. A long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72: 355-362.
17 Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS. et al. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93: 198-204.
18 Cook J, Schulz K, Karnes J. Canine Unicompartmental Elbow Arthroplasty in dogs. Proceedings of the 15th Annual ESVOT Congress. 2010. September 15-18 Bologna, Italy: pg. 475.
19 Andreoni AA, Rytz U, Vannini R. et al. Ground reaction force profiles after partial and pancarpal arthrodesis in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23: 1-6.
20 Voss K, Galeandro L, Wiestner T. et al. Relationships of body weight, body size, subject velocity, and vertical ground reaction forces in trotting dogs. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 863-869.
21 Voss K, Wiestner T, Galeandro L. et al. Effect of dog breed and body conformation on vertical ground reaction forces, impulses, and stance times. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24: 106-112.
22 Evans HE, Delahunta A, Miller ME. Miller's Anatomy of the dog. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2013. p. 2013-169.
23 Goel VK, Lee IK, Blair WF. Effect of the Coonrad elbow prosthesis on stresses in the humerus. Clin Biomech 1989; 4: 11-16.
24 O'Driscoll SW, An KN, Korinek S. et al. Kinematics of semi-constrained total elbow arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992; 74: 297-299.
25 Canine Unicompartmental Elbow (CUE). Surgical Technique broschure. Naples, Florida: Arthrex Vet Systems; 2012. Available at: http://www.veterinary-instrumentation.co.uk/pages.php?pageid=462
26 Ewald FC, Simmons Jr. ED, Sullivan JA. et al. Capitellocondylar total elbow replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75: 498-507.
27 Davis RF, Weiland AJ, Hungerford DS. et al. Nonconstrained total elbow arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982; 156-160.
28 Rumph PF, Lander JE, Kincaid SA. et al. Ground reaction force profiles from force platform gait analyses of clinically normal mesomorphic dogs at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55: 756-761.
29 McLaughlin Jr. RM, Roush JK. Effects of subject stance time and velocity on ground reaction forces in clinically normal greyhounds at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55: 1666-1671.
30 Willer RL, Johnson KA, Turner TM. et al. Partial carpal arthrodesis for third degree carpal sprains. A review of 45 carpi. Vet Surg 1990; 19: 334-340.
31 Cuddy LC, Lewis DD, Kim SE. et al. Ex vivo contact mechanics and three-dimensional alignment of normal dog elbows after proximal ulnar rotational osteotomy. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 905-914.
32 Cuddy LC, Lewis DD, Kim SE. et al. Contact mechanics and three-dimensional alignment of normal dog elbows. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 818-828.
33 Gutbrod A, Guerrero TG. Effect of external rotational humeral osteotomy on the contact mechanics of the canine elbow joint. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 845-852.
34 Gasch EG, Labruyere JJ, Bardet JF. Computed tomography of ununited anconeal process in the dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25: 498-505.
35 Might KR, Hanzlik KA, Case JB. et al. In vitro comparison of proximal ulnar osteotomy and distal ulnar osteotomy with release of the interosseous ligament in a canine model. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 321-326.
36 Samoy Y, Gielen I, Van Caelenberg A. et al. Computed tomography findings in 32 joints affected with severe elbow incongruity and fragmented medial coronoid process. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 486-494.
37 Samoy Y, Van Vynckt D, Gielen I. et al. Arthroscopic findings in 32 joints affected by severe elbow incongruity with concomitant fragmented medial coronoid process. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 355-361.
38 Samoy YC, de Bakker E, Van Vynckt D. et al. Arthroscopic treatment of fragmented coronoid process with severe elbow incongruity. Long-term follow-up in eight Bernese Mountain Dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26: 27-33.
39 Van Vynckt D, Verhoeven G, Saunders J. et al. Diagnostic intra-articular anaesthesia of the elbow in dogs with medial coronoid disease. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25: 307-313.
40 de Bakker E, Saunders J, Gielen I. et al. Radiographic findings of the medial humeral epicondyle in 200 canine elbow joints. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25: 359-365.

Zusatzmaterial

Zusatzmaterial (PDF)